The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in Jeopardy? Internal Divisions and the Impact of World Politics

The frustration of non-nuclear weapon states about the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament has reached boiling point: a vast majority of them have supported a resolution in the UN General Assembly that establishes a negotiation forum for concluding a prohibition of nuclear weapons in 2017. Rising tension among the nuclear powers and populist movements feeding nationalist emotions make it unlikely that the situation will change for the better in the near future. It is thus possible that the NPT might be eroded or, in the worst case scenario, simply collapse because of diminishing support.     

THE AMERICAN RESPONSE TO PAKISTANI AND IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: A STUDY IN PARADOX

This article explores the paradox in the reaction of the United States to the two different proliferation cases: Pakistan's proliferation and Iran's weaponization effort. The article tries to find answer to the following key question; why the United States, as one of the guardians of the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) which would prefer to see a region that is entirely free of weapons of mass destruction, ultimately has accepted Pakistan's proliferation, while imposed considerable amount of pressure to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The paper posits that number of factors explain such differences; first, and at the theoretical level, Pakistan was never considered an “irrational” and “messianic” state like Iran, but regarded as a country with a certain degree of cold-war type nuclear rationality. Second and at the applied level, while Pakistan was a US ally with not having a history of challenging the United States, Iran has been considered enemy and a threat toward the US interest.

Third, while Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was viewed as a defensive mean against overwhelming strength of India, Iran's possible nuclear arsenal considered to be for offensive uses against the United States and Israel. The fourth factor pertains to the consequences of proliferation, which is what happens when Iran's neighboring countries may feel threatened by Iranian nuclear weapon and proceed to develop their own arsenal. Fifth factor deals with the possible Iran's temptation to give some nuclear material to a terror group in which made the United States serious in preventing Iran's weaponization. Last but not least, Israel was not involved to pressure and agitate against Pakistan, while it was applied a tremendous pressure against Iran to prevent it from achieving nuclear weapons.     

不扩散全球治理:现实主义视角

在全球化时代,民族国家奉行主权防务的传统没有改变。基于现实主义的视角,所有大规模毁伤性武器的扩散主要都有安全动因的驱动,解决扩散问题必须提供可信的替代安全产品,集体防御以及合作安全都具有这种功效。霸权可能导致一时的稳定,但更会引起大规模毁伤性武器扩散所带来的长期性的不稳定。同时,扩散不仅容易产生地区失稳,它也不无平衡霸权从而产生新的稳定。然而所有个体的理性,未必保证系统的整体理性。在平衡国家安全和国际安全之间,经由全球治理来交换国家安全利益从而促使人类社会分享更为普遍的安全,乃是一种更为理想的出路。     

《不扩散核武器条约》的评判与展望——从朝鲜、伊朗核危机说起

朝鲜、伊朗核危机逼迫人们重新审视目前世界上既有的核不扩散机制——《不扩散核武器条约》(以下简称《条约)》。《条约》是有核国和无核国斗争、妥协的产物,其目的在于努力实现核不扩散、核裁军、和平利用核能三者之间的平衡,一旦其中之一不能实现,就会引起《条约》的危机。而《条约》本身的缺陷使得它无法根本实现三者的平衡,必须对其进行改进,才能实现《条约》的目标,保证世界的和平与安全。     

印度对国际核不扩散机制的政策现状及前景

1998年5月11日和13日,印度相继进行了5次核试验并公开宣布成为核武器国家。印度核试验对国际核不扩散机制构成了严重冲击,也遭到国际社会的一致谴责。至今,印度仍被国际核不扩散机制排除在外,尽管已是事实上的核武器国家,但并未获得法理上的承认,从而对印度谋求“有声有色的大国”地位形成掣肘。为此,印度积极调整对国际核不扩散机制的政策,缓和与该机制的关系,并且寻求融入机制,以期助力其大国地位追求。但在此过程中,印度的战略自主传统与国际机制的规则之间出现了结构性的矛盾,使其政策目标充满了极大的不确定性。     

国际原子能机构的困境与未来

国际原子能机构成立的初衷是促进核能的民用,但如何在促进核能民用的同时防范核扩散是该机构诞生以来一直面临的困境。近年来,国际原子能机构在伊拉克和伊朗的核查历史表明,该机构所面临的挑战如果得不到妥善解决,那么,未来无论是在促进核能民用还是在防范核扩散方面均将作为有限。本文简要回顾了IAEA成立的历史,并在分析其内在困境以及在两伊核查中所存在问题的基础上,提出了IAEA应对日益增多的挑战的出路。